Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)72ITD97(Delhi)
1. When these three appeals together with several other appeals of similar type were pending in the Tribunal all over the country, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax III, Delhi, addressed a letter dated 14-8-1998 bringing to the notice of the President the pendency of several appeals, involving block assessment orders, filed by the assessee in which grounds/additional grounds were raised about the legality of the approval given by the Commissioners of Income-tax approving the block assessment orders. The main contention of the assessees in those cases is that the Commissioner is required by law to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessees before giving approval and it is also contended that the Commissioner is required by law to record his reasoning in writing while approving the order of the Assessing Officer. This issue is involved in almost all the block assessments all over the country numbering hundreds. There is a possibility of difference of opinion amongst different Be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)13ITD108(Delhi)
1. These two appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the revenue, were heard together. They are disposed of by this common order.2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of steel pipes. The accounting year ended on 31-3-1974. The method of accounting is mercantile.The first objection in this appeal by the revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the claim of the assessee-company for deduction of liability amounting to Rs. 26,52,610 on account of increase in price of steel consumed was admissible and thereby deleting the said amount from the total income.4. Shri R.N. Dave, the departmental representative, took us through the facts of the case. We find that the facts are discussed in paragraph Nos. 2 to 2.4 of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. Briefly, the relevant facts were as follows.5. The assessee bought imported goods from Hindustan Steel Ltd. (HSL) at prices fixed from time to time by the Joint Plant Committee (J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)12ITD65(Delhi)
1. The assessee is a private limited company manufacturing electric switchgears. It did substantial business in the export of this commodity. Under the export trade policy of the Government of India, outlined for the year 1977-78, such exports made by the assessee resulted in some import entitlements, i.e., the assessee acquired the right to import certain commodities, which it required for its manufacturing business. It could either import such commodities or it could also, under the import entitlements, transfer the entitlements to other parties, who could in turn import the goods in question for the purposes of manufacture.2. During the relevant previous year (year ended 31-3-1978), the assessee sold the import entitlements it had received for Rs. 1,35,020.The assessee claimed that this sum of Rs. 1,35,020 was a capital receipt and not taxable. The IAC did not accept this plea. In his view, the entitlements had been received on account of business activities and, hence, closely int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)25ITD193(Delhi)
1. There being difference of opinion between Members on some of the points involved as per orders annexed, the Special Bench Tribunal order is as follows : 1. 80J Relief to be recomputed within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308, i.e., all liabilities are to be deducted for the purpose of computing capital employed, which shall have the effect of the Revenue's appeal on the point being allowed and the assessee's rejected (Unanimous view)-Ground No. 1 in both the appeals. 2. Coming to Section 35B dispute on which both the parties were in appeal, the revenue is ('s claim to be) rejected whereas the assessee partly succeeds inasmuch as, in respect of packing material expenses to the tune of Rs. 65,08,653, directions have been given that Section 35B deduction should be allowed in respect of bifurcated expenses on wrappers. The directions are similar to the one given in the assessee's own case in res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1992)43ITD447(Delhi)
1. All these appeals are directed against the order dated 5-9-1991 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XII, New Delhi. They involve common controversy and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. The controversy is in connection with addition under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. On 10th December, 1987 during the search operations under Section 132 of the Act, the department found that deposits aggregating in all to Rs. 21.67 lakhs in the name of the assessee as also in the names of the assessee's minor children were found. On the day of search the assessee admitted ownership of the deposits in a statement recorded. In a statement recorded during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee denied having any knowledge as to the sources of the deposits.All the deposits were with National Confederation of Bank Employees Society Ltd. On 8th January, 1988 i.e., after a month of the statement at the time of search, she again admitted the ownershi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)85ITD478(Delhi)
1. These two appeals--one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue emanate from the order passed by the CIT(A) on 4th Dec., 2000, in relation to asst. yr. 1997-98. As both the appeals are emerging out of the same order, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of both these appeals by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.Briefly stated the facts of the case, as collected from the orders of the authorities below, statement of facts and other material before us, are that the assessee-company, incorporated in and a resident of Hongkong was deriving lease income from lease of transponder capacity.It was engaged in operating telecommunication satellites located in US stationary orbit of 36,000 kms above equator in accordance with the regulatory requirements of the International Telecommunication Union under the United Nations. In the year under consideration it operated two satellites available at its disposal, namely, Asiasat-I, taken by the assessee on lease located at 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)98TTJ(Delhi)681
1. These two appeals by the assessee raise identical issues against the order dt. 12th Jan., 2000, of learned CWT(A), New Delhi, as under : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the decision of learned CWT(A) in confirming the jurisdiction under Section 17 of learned AO is ab initio improper and illegal inasmuch as the notice under Section 17 has been issued for assessment and not reassessment, and whereas the appellant has already been assessed under Section 16(1) for the relevant assessment year, 2. That the learned CWT(A) has not passed any order regarding 1st ground of appeal taken before CWT(A) which is being reproduced herebelow : 3. That, the learned AO has passed order under Section 16(5) whereas our counsel had appeared on dt. 5th Jan., 1998, which clearly proves that the order has been passed in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the following acts of the authoritie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)1
1. All these cross appeals and cross objection in respect of the three assesses are directed against the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals) in the respective cases. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.1.1. These matters were fixed before the Division Benches but at the instance of the assesses and in the light of the importance of the issues involved, a request was made to the Hon'ble President to refer the matter to a Special Bench Under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The President, I.T.A.T after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, decided to constitute a Special Bench.The following question was referred to the Special Bench: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the revenues earned by the appellant from supply of equipment and software to Indian Telecom Operators were taxable in India?" 2. It may be relevant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)283ITR28(Delhi)
1. These four appeals pertain to asst. yrs. 1995-96, 1994-95, 1996-97 and 2000-2001. Appeal in ITA No. 5252/Del/1998 is Revenue's appeal filed on 3rd Nov., 1998 against the order of the learned CIT(A) XVI, New Delhi dt. 4th Aug., 1998 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1995-96. Appeal in ITA No. 3805/Del/1999 is the appeal filed by the assessee on 24th Sept., 1999 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-VI, New Delhi dt.4th June, 1999 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1994-95. Appeal in ITA No.1786/Del/2000 is the appeal filed by the Revenue on 10th April, 2000 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, dt. 17th Jan., 2000 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1996-97, and the appeal in ITA No.4670/Del/2003 is the appeal filed by the assessee on 14th Oct., 2003 against the order of the learned CIT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. IT(SS) A. No. 411/Del/04 is an appeal by the assessee and IT(SS) A.No. 45/Del/05 is an appeal by the Revenue. Both these appeals arise out of the order of learned CIT(A)-III, New Delhi dated 30/11/2004. They are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. First we shall take up the Assessee's appeal i.e. IT(SS) A. No: 411/Del/04 for consideration. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the appeal by the Assessee are as follows. The Assessee is a company. M/s HCL Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s HCLCL'), M/s Shiv Nadar Investment Pvt.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s SNIPL') and the assessee company were promoters of a company by name, M/s HCL Consulting Ltd. The main objects of these three companies were making investments in various companies. The investments are in the form of contribution to share capital of various companies. They promote companies and hold shares of companies promoted. The shares are held by these companies in order to have power ...
Tag this Judgment!